However there still are a few people who watch Betamax tapes, listen to records and use a land line so there will always be a few people who refuse to come into the modern world. They hang on to past technologies like it is a winning lottery ticket. They refuse to admit that new technology is better and they refuse to even try it.

High ISO cameras, advanced shooting modes, Photoshop, and image stabilization have all contributed to making fast lenses a thing of the past.

The economics are amazing. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is $2500. The exact same lens in f4 costs $1000. While there might be a few people in the world that can justify spending $1500 for one more stop, the overwhelming majority would laugh at such an idea.

It never ceases to amuse me the kind of tripe that is served up here by the experts.

Jim PilcherSummit County, Colorado, USA

Clearly the OP doesn't shoot any sort of variety of lighting or movement conditions.

The difference between landscapes at noon and indoor sports is, by my calculations, sometimes as much as 12 stops. The other day I was shooting indoor sports with my G3 at ISO 1600, aperture f/4, shutter 1/160th on a tripod. What I REALLY wanted was to be shooting was 1/500th handheld with ISO quality equivalent to 400. Does the OP have any idea how much it costs to buy a camera body that looks as good at ISO 4000 as a G3 at ISO 1600, never mind ISO 400?

What the OP is really saying is that we don't need to shoot with fast lenses because we can't afford fast lenses. It's a really bad argument.

What I read in the OP is a comparison between a f2.8 lens and a f4 lens. Sure, in your situation, one stop would have been helpful, but it wouldn't have been near to getting you what you stated you want -- around 4 stops faster!